Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Preedit writes to tell us that those busy folks over at InformationWeek have been scrutinizing yet more SEC filings, and Novell and Microsoft aren't the only ones concerned about certain provisions in the final draft of GPLv3. TiVo worries too. The problem is that TiVo boxes are Linux-based. They're also designed to shut down if the software is hacked by users trying to circumvent DRM features. But GPLv3 would prohibit TiVo's no-tamper setup. "If the currently proposed version of GPLv3 is widely adopted, we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software, which could adversely affect our business," TiVo warns in a regulatory filing cited by InformationWeek."

You wouldn't have a very useful Linux system without XFree86 / XORG, Apache, Tomcat, SpamAssassin, Sendmail, QMail, Postfix, Perl, PHP, ISC BIND, ISC DHCP, Postgres, Webmin and the various other packages that are under non-GPL licenses.

And on your definition of "conducive", and of "community", and of "creating", heck, and of "definition" and so on. Come on, it's ridiculous. RMS has been spending decades explaining "free". Let's not split hairs.

You say explaining, I say redefining. You also assume that everyone agrees with RMS's explanations and redefinitions; some of us (who release code under the BSD license) don't; adding a restriction takes away "freedom" not adds to it, and the GPL3 nonsense simply underlines that way of thinking for me.

Because with public domain, you can lose credit as authors of that code. The convention to put authorship on public domain work is courtesy and convention, not something legally required. Some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want their initial efforts mentioned.

While I'm certain someone will say that maintaining authorship is a restricted freedom, most people would consider not doing so akin to plagiarism.

Typical revisionist history. The essence of the BSD license well precedes the popularity of the GPL license, which really only rose because of Linus's work, not Stallman's meddling. The argument that the GPL increased restrictions on freedoms holds pretty firm. (Then again, your arguments also show a general lack of understanding between the licenses.)

Furthermore, you ignore that at the advent of the BSD license, the legal environment around copyright was different than it was today. The thought (rightly put forward at the then present, now past) was that licenses were the only way to afford positive affirmations of rights under existing law and court cases. This is why BSD licenses, which some people include the old Apache and MIT licenses, came to exist.

Prior to the case (similar to the situation that affects works such as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) I think involving Fox, public domain protections were not clear. Up to that time, it was entirely unclear *and untested* that a public domain work (such as a character) could not be re-rolled into a new work and copyrighted, thus affording the old character all current legal protections as if it was created new.

In any case, GPL3 really shows the colors of the GPL camp, which is not about maintaining use and rights but sticking it to corporations and maintaining license lock. The proof is in the pudding, as it were--you've added restrictions. Compare that to the BSD license, which has removed a restriction, and that's saying something given there's like there were only 4 or so to begin with.

In any case, I still think license choice should be up to the author; unfortunately, most authors go the popular route, not the comprehension route. TiVo deserves to be burned for their decision, because they didn't look at the history of the GPL camp or the impact of a license change. Then again, I also think there's minor protestations are crap; there's not much keeping them from rolling the old GPL2 licensed code forward--in fact, doing so may actually get major interest because there are likely other individuals and companies that think GPL3 goes too far.

Well, public domain is definitely the most free way to distribute software. It also includes (and is most certainly no limited to) the freedoms to take away credit, and also restrict free distribution in the future of modified copies (I think).The point is, there are two ways to define freedom, so to speak. One is the upstream way, where the freedom is what the authors say it is. You are free (have a license) to do whatever the author says you can, and the freedom is therefore subjective, but can protect th

if a "restriction" reduces the "freedom" to restrict is it really reducing freedom?

Two of the most important "restrictions" in the GPL v3 relate to DRM and Software Patents. These are two of the most restricting features in technology. Restricting them does not reducing overall freedom.

As I understand it, basic Hindu philosophy on the matter of spiritual freedom is similar: through a spiritual practice, you gain greater freedom, but some of the things you can do with your freedom will take away that freedom: crude example - taking addictive drugs: you're free to take them but your freedom will be reduced if you exercise your freedom in this manner.
It's the philosopohy that to preserve freedom you have to refrain from doing things which reduce that freedom. Looking at it from the other s

Anarchy is the only free system, but most freedom lovers aren't all that keen on that as a concept. The GPL is free in most respects except that you are not free to make in non-free. Some people see this as a price worth paying.

The big stink would essentially KILL Linux in many organizations. If you don't think it would be a headline topic essentially forever afterwards, and the big red WARNING that any commercial entity sees flashing before their eyes when anybody internally suggests Linux for anything, you're kidding yourself.

This statement is wrong in so many fundamental ways it displays a total lack of knowledge regarding Tivo's hostility to the GPL.

What the Tivo people did was privatize Free (as in speech) software. It is roughly analogous to stealing a painting from a publicly-funded museum and hanging it up in your house. They accomplished this a number of ways including a signature check of some kind during startup. The implications are:

By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".

By your logic you just condemned the GNU license in that: it takes away your freedom to 'not release' changes you have made to GNU'ed software and the 'freedom' under GNU'ed software absolutely lives by that dictated 'freedom'.

I only disagree with the parent poster in that I would have 'completely free' instead of 'truly free'.

However, as I think about it 'completely free' isn't 'completely' accurate either in that I think the difference between the BSD and GNU licenses is this:

the BSD license make the end user free (to do what they want with the software)

the GNU license(s) make the actual software free (for others to use/chance it as well)

the BSD license make the end user free (to do what they want with the software)

the GNU license(s) make the actual software free (for others to use/chance it as well)

Except that's not right either. End users are the people who run the software, not write it or sell it. The GPL is about assuring that the people who run the software have the ability and the right to tweak it however they need to. Such as fixing bugs without being solely reliant on the good graces of a potentially defunct software developer.

Tivo's attitude is entirely compatible with BSD license's intent, but it isn't compatible with the GPL's intent to allow the tivo unit's user to fix bugs like DRM (

OK, I'll bite. Exactly how does the BSD license allow you to take away someone else's freedom? That's like saying that performing a Shakespeare play somehow prevents other people from performing it. The people who put on the specific performance may say what can and can't be done with a specific performance (e.g. whether it can be recorded, the recording distributed, etc.), which is the way it always has been. Anyone else can still go back to the original and create a new performance. The BSD license is essentially the same thing as having works in the public domain (except that you are required to credit the author). The point of the public domain is that works are free for all comers to use as they wish. This has been the case as long as copyright has existed. Saying that you can somehow take away somebody else's freedom by using works in the public domain, or under the BSD license, is pure doublespeak.

In fact, the GPL is really what takes away your freedom. It essentially says that if you want to create a derivative work, you must abide by certain restrictions. What this effectively does is grant certain rights to the recipients of derivative works in exchange for certain restrictions on freedom to create those derivative works. Not as sexy sounding as "preserving freedom", I suppose.

You may support the use of the GPL based on your wanting to promote open source, or your wanting to prevent people from profiting from your work, or a multitude of other reasons. But it is duplicitous to say the GPL preserves freedom.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." To that I would add, "Restrictions are Rights."

Guido, your argument was very good. You had me questioning my own preference for the GPL over BSD license. (My preference in that direction is not very strong, and there are situations where I prefer the BSD license.) But cheater512's argument was stronger (and nice and succinct, as you pointed out). I don't understand why you had to cut him down.

My best analogy of BSD versus GPL is to question which provides more freedom: the freedom to do anything, or the freedom to do anything except enslave someone and remove their freedoms. It's a philosophical question, and I can easily see people taking either position. I don't believe that there's a right answer to the question. In modern society, we choose the latter.

Admittedly, the Free Software Foundation's (and Open Source guideline's) four freedoms are not as important as the human right not to be enslaved. (Richard Stallman might disagree; he believes the four freedoms are fundamental human rights for the modern world.) But having and keeping those 4 freedoms is quite liberating. It allows you to control your own destiny when it comes to the software you use.

I "cut him down" because my whole point was that Tivo cannot take away your freedoms. They may not give you any new freedoms, but they can't take away anything you already have. You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms. You may not like their rights, and may in fact prefer to deprive them of those rights. And that's fine, but don't say you're promoting freedom. You're forcing Tivo to do something they didn't want to do in order to be granted a license to use your software. Force is antithetical to freedom. The "why" doesn't really matter.

Again, your argument about enslavement suffers from the same fallacy. Nobody can enslave you and remove your rights, any more than someone can remove your rights to use software that you have a license for. Your rights are still there no matter what anyone else does. In fact, that analogy is not very good at all, because when software is released it is copied. One person may do something with the software, and it has no bearing whatsoever on what you choose to do with it.

To sum up, yes, I personally am opposed to both the effect and the intent of the GPL. But that's not really relevant here. Even if I were in favor of using the GPL--to promote open source for example--I would still take exception to the notion that the GPL provides freedom, but the BSD license does not. It's the other way around. The GPL may have other benefits, but promoting freedom isn't one of them. Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want with software, even something other people may not like. When you cannot do that, it is because your freedom is restricted.

I believe in the BSD license because I believe that for something to be truly free, it must not be encumbered in any way. Credit is fine (although I'd accept the argument that works in the public domain are "more free" than BSD licensed works), because it doesn't take away the essential freedom to do essentially whatever you want with software. Any further restrictions, though, are just not free.

I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked?

Once Tivo has sold it to me, it's not "their product" any more. It's my property, and any "freedoms" regarding it belong to me. As it happens, the particular copyright license in the software that Tivo chose to redistribute may help ensure that Tivo is prevented from interfering with my freedom to use my property as I see fit.

Because apparently, Tivo couldn't be bothered to write their own goddamned software. So they decided to use somebody else's at no charge, and the authors of that software thought that end users should have those freedoms.

You have the typical low-level software developer blinders on. The GPL is not all that concerned about the 1% of people who redistribute software; it's concerned about the 99% of people who are end users. You're just upset because you can't take the software gratis, then redistribute it under your own terms. That's not a concern for end users, but the restrictions that you would add under your terms would be.

When you bought it, you knew what the restrictions, both legal and technological, on it were.

The legal "restrictions" on it, the GPL, are what you're complaining about here. As far as technological shortcomings, property owner has a right to fix what he owns.

You just want to play pretend hacker with your toys.

Yeah, and you just want to play patsy to some OEM and tell yourself that that's somehow "freedom".

I don't understand why Tivo should be required to help you do so, however.

Because they're selling devices running an operating system that was developed by a community under a "share and share alike" philosophy. They're profiting from this community--which is fine by itself--but a lot of members of the community are really miffed that we can't go out and buy a Tivo, put in a custom kernel, run myth, tinker, etc. If it was my code, I'd be upset too. In fact, I'd be upset enough to make sure all future v

Once Tivo has sold it to me, it's not "their product" any more. It's my property, and any "freedoms" regarding it belong to me. As it happens, the particular copyright license in the software that Tivo chose to redistribute may help ensure that Tivo is prevented from interfering with my freedom to use my property as I see fit.

Don't be ridiculous. Just because you bought something doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do as you wish to it. Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it? Of course not.

What about your house? You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters? No.

Your car? Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like? No - there are rules you must abide by.

Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products. If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right, but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

Let me give you an example. Say you have three available software licenses for source code.

1) You may change this software however you like and do whatever you want with the result.

2) You may not change this software in any way.

3) You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

You are trying to tell me that 3 is "more free" than 1. In reality, it's just a variation on 2, the most restrictive license possible. I'd accept the argument that it promotes open source, but stop conflating source code availability with freedom. Under license 3, the price of that particular freedom is somebody else's freedom. You may not care because you end up benefiting in some cases, but there is a freedom cost.

Incidentally, as this all relates to Tivo--I'd be willing to bet they won't use any new GPL material in their new systems. In fact, they'll probably remove whatever GPL material they already have as they migrate to a closed source system. Once bitten, twice shy. So, the net result is a loss of freedom, I guess you'd say. Way to go, freedom advocates.

The best way I've ever seen the GPL vs. BSD debate put was something like this: GPL makes software free, BSD makes people free. BSD allows people to do much more with the code, meaning they have more freedom. However, GPL forces that code and any changes you make to be free as well, taking away some choice from the people, but ensuring the software itself and all variations will remain free. It seems like this argument is centering around the definition of free and what it applies to. Really, there are two different applications of the word.

I'm personally a fan of GPL. I think that if code is made free, companies shouldn't take it and make money off it without giving anything back. I'll even admit that, yes, it's a restriction on their freedom. However, I think it's worth it to force them to share with the community that allowed them to make their money in the first place. That said, BSD certainly has its uses depending on your goals. I think they're both very good and useful licenses. You really shouldn't worry too much about which is better, because there isn't actually a good answer. It's just a matter of preference. They're both good, they're both useful, and they can both coexist just fine. Neither will go away, and they aren't competing with each other. It's just a developer choice.

This may finally be the motivation the BSD world needs to replace GNU software, like the C library and compilers, with truly free alternatives.

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free. While that would be great for companies like Tivo, it is bad for end users, since they do NOT get the freedom to further enhance the proprietary fork of the code.

I personally don't see why the "BSD world" thinks that producing software that other people can turn proprietary is a good thing. However, if they write the software they have obviously the right to use any kind of license they want for it.

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free. While that would be great for companies like Tivo, it is bad for end users, since they do NOT get the freedom to further enhance the proprietary fork of the code.

Proprietary forks are rarely bad for end users in general. The vast majority have no interest in enhancing the code, or getting someone to enhance it for them. However end users in general benefit from the proprietary code forking off of open code. Compare Apple's Mac OS X to Microsoft's Windows. Consider Microsoft's use of the TCP/IP stack. GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel, to indulge in not-invented-here tendencies. Such tactics also deter investors and make it that much more difficult from startups to form or succeed. It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other. I'd argue that end users benefit when there is a healthy and vibrant startup community.

You mean, encourage companies _who do not want to share back_ to reinvent the wheel.

When they are free to proprietarize the open code, then _everyone else_ has to reinvent the wheel. Take a look at the vast horde of failed or utterly changed BSD based proprietary unixes over the last two decades.

Copylefts minimize the duplication of effort by ensuring that all effort cooperatively survives and evolves; allowing proprietary offshoots merely raises the baseline off which the duplication and NIH syndrome starts.

"It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other."

Again, the last two decades indicate otherwise. I see few small to midsize BSD companies these days; the main winners seem to be the large companies. Which fits well when you have a joint baseline; the large companies can throw more resources on building above the baseline than the small, and as they dont have to give back, the smaller ones will have a hard time competing in the next round.

Proprietary forks are rarely bad for end users in general. The vast majority have no interest in enhancing the code, or getting someone to enhance it for them. However end users in general benefit from the proprietary code forking off of open code. Compare Apple's Mac OS X to Microsoft's Windows. Consider Microsoft's use of the TCP/IP stack. GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel, to indulge in not-invented-here tendencies.

Of course standing on the shoulders of giants helps. However, over time you'd wish that these giants get taller so that the gap between what open source can deliver and the user expects gets smaller. How much has OS X done to promote the BSD desktop? Preciously little. Companies don't want the proprietary layer to get thinner, they want it to get thicker so that any competitors must reimplement more to compete. Either through fair means by building a better mouse trap, or dirty "embrace-extend-extinguish" tactics. Open source is used only because a proprietary kernel wouldn't give Apple any advantage big enough to justify the cost. You're missing the fact that every company is in the "force other companies to reinvent the wheel" mode.

Such tactics also deter investors and make it that much more difficult from startups to form or succeed. It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other. I'd argue that end users benefit when there is a healthy and vibrant startup community.

Yes, it's really hard to make a startup when there's a bunch of GPL zealots that'll immidiately create an OSS clone. But, what would you like to do about that? Make GPL verboten? If anything this proves that the GPL creates a more efficient marketplace where you can either create value faster or get out. And you're ignoring that if proprietary software had their way, it wouldn't be "take open source and add our little value add code on top" it would be "take open source, reinvent whole proprietary layer, then add our little value add code on top".

Huh? No, nobody benefits much from proprietary forks except the companies making them.

Who has benefited from the BSD code usage in OS X? Well, Apple and... pretty much nobody else. I haven't benefited from Microsoft's use of the BSD licensed TCP stack, only Microsoft has.

Now compare one GPLd project I'm familiar with: Second Life.

I and other developers benefited from the released source because now I can add my improvements and fix bugs, which can find their way to their official client.

Linden Labs has benefited because people worked on and improved parts that were less critical to LL at the time, so they wouldn't have had them for a long time. There was a LL developer on the mailing list (forget who), who said something along the lines of "I was going to do work on that, but turns out somebody already done it!". The result for LL is that the client gets developed faster than it would be otherwise. It also improves things a lot in the more boring and obscure parts of the codebase. A LL developer probably won't see much interest in overhauling the chat log system, but a contributor who isn't skilled enough to work on the renderer might.

The general userbase also benefited: Bugs are getting fixed faster. Knowledgeable users now can give informed replies to technical questions. Inside SL, there seems to be an emerging industry where companies pay developers to make modifications to the viewer. Developers can code new features requested by users who can't. For instance, I've coded a few hacks (not very elegant still, but they do the job) that work around some limitations in SL.

Now THAT is a vibrant community. The usage of BSD code by MS and Apple isn't, it's simply freeloading. Obviously people writing BSD licensed code are in their own right to allow it, but it doesn't really benefit anybody but those who are taking it.

This is why you should pick a license appropriate for your software. Richard Stallman has actually endorsed the use of BSD-like licenses for Ogg Vorbis libraries since it is in the interests of the community to have such code in use as widely as possible.

I tend to be a GPL fan. For stuff I write, it's my preferred license. However, there are a few cases where I think BSD type licenses are superior. The major one is where you're trying to create a standard. For example, Ogg Vorbis -- it is far more valuable to the community if it *does* get included in proprietary places, because promoting the *format* is a good thing. BSD promotes exactly that. There are plenty of similar examples.

Gpl3 is divisive, but correct in this case. Companies like Tivo benefit from the OSS model of tinker/hack/remake and still restrict users in doing the same. The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

If Tivo feels that DRM is worth more than continued use of GPL software, so be it.

Gpl3 is divisive, but correct in this case. Companies like Tivo benefit from the OSS model of tinker/hack/remake and still restrict users in doing the same. The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

If Tivo feels that DRM is worth more than continued use of GPL software, so be it.

Well said. I love that last comment.
This issue has been hot for a while. So I just pulled a comment that I had written on my Frapper some time ago. Yes I know that anything connected with Google is not FREE but I do not maintain a real blog to this just works for me.
The point of freesoftware
The technology in freesoftware, the companies that support its growth and build on it and even its users are all tools. Novell has forgotten this, simple fact. The principle difference between open source and freesoftware is that in open source all of the rights to use it with out restriction are not protected. The GPL puts no limits on the cost of software production, packaging or distribution.
To brake this down a little:
1. The point of freesoftware is not so people can get a program with out cost.
2. The point of freesoftware is not to make it popular.
3. The point of freesoftware is not to make great technology.
4. The point of freesoftware is not to make rich CEO's even more rich.
The point is to free the user of the tyranny of monopolistic situations and doing so primarily in the digital space.
Some or all of the non-points listed must take place at some point in time for real freedom to come to said users, clearly that is true.
Novell has been in the past a tool for that very cause. That may not be so in the future. I have even told them these very things. I also look forward to telling them again in person at the Ohio Linux Fest. Um well um that would refer to GNU+Linux of course. Maybe there will be some talk of GNU+Hurd there as well. Then I guess you can not really consider such and event specific to GNU+Linux.
Call me a Stallmanite. I do not care. You know I am right. The software that some of you are such fans of would not even exist if it were not for this most simple, most important, most forgotten, fact.
Novel has forgotten this and Tivo has clearly never bothered to understand it.

However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything. Thus it is a good starting point. The condition of having to release source code changes is minor enough that companies are ok with it. However it isn't the only game in town. There's plenty of commercial solutions like vxWorks, QNX and even Windows (there's a special embedded version of XP you can get). While many companies would rather not pay the money, if the Linux license becomes too restrictive, they'll do it.

Make no mistake, that's what they are talking about with the GPL is a more restrictive license. The idea behind it may be to encourage more free development but the license itself is more restrictive.

This isn't necessarily a good thing as you have to have a balance if you want to be large and get good stuff back. If you license is too open, like a BSD license, everyone may use your stuff, but you'll never see any of it back and thus it doesn't do you any good in terms of having more contributed. However if you license is too restrictive you can find yourself in a situation where people don't use your stuff at all. Even if you license is designed to ensure that everyone has access to all the changes, that doesn't do any good if no changes are made.

One of the reasons that Linux enjoys the success it does is that I think the GPLv2 does a great job of striking a balance. You still have to give your code out, but there aren't really any restrictions of what you can do with it. I am worried that if a more restrictive license starts to take over, you'll see companies moving away from Linux.

Maybe you are ok with that, and if so that's fine, but recognise that if you decide to play hardball and say "We are going to make you do this or you can't use our stuff," that people may say "Ok fine, we won't." If that happens, you aren't really in a position to bitch about it.

"Too restrictive"? What the hell are you on? GPL v3 simply makes explicit some things that GPL v2 already mentioned implicitly. It's an attempt to stop assholes from exploiting several loopholes in v2. The rest of the thing keeps the same spirit as v2, and it's not more restrictive than it. Well, now, if you feel that v2 was restrictive as well, tough on you.

We'd like some companies to stop using Free Software: the companies that can't comply with the license in both letter and spirit, and insist on engineering loopholes - be they in hardware (Tivo) or in law (Novell-Microsoft). Those companies work to de-motivate the developers of the software that they are using, who contributed their software on a share-and-share-alike basis and expect that to be respected. We would do better without them.

The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

The license doesn't have anything establishing that "freedom". Tivo has done nothing wrong, they used the software, provided the source code back to the community, but restricted how people can change the software ON THE MACHINES THEY SELL.

People that fell so strongly about this issue are clearly not the audience for the Tivo products on the first place. Maybe building their own Tivo

Your so called "freedom to tinker" just means that no company will be allowed any kind of protection for protected content.

You lost me at "protection for protected content". You're talking about bits on my hard drive, right? My hard drive, that happens to be in my DVR, that I own? I'm afraid that I can't summon up any tears over people not being able to prevent me from accessing the data on my own hard drive. Anyone who built a business model on that fantasy is an idiot - if they go broke it's not my probl

I'm a fan of tivo, I have one myself but this particular problem I dont see as a problem. The DRM is already cracked and it requires little to no effort to extract tivo video files to DRM free files.
I don't see a problem with them biting the dust on this one, its a feature designed to limit us and thats something I dont want. I got my tivo long before they did trash like this and I'm disappointed that tivo is catering to the DRM crowd now a days. Next thing you know they'll be dropping the hidden 30-second skip which shouldnt be hidden in the first place.

The BSDs most certainly do not use the GNU libc. While it is true that you cannot compile the system without gcc, you can definitely have a running BSD system with no GNU tools installed. It would be fairly bare bones (back to csh), but it's possible.

There are many good commercial operating systems, use one of those. Using Linux has been a good choice up till now but things have changed and now it is incompatible with what you want to do. It is no big deal, you will survive.

If they did those things no sane person could claim a Tivo is a tool for infrigement any more then a dvdrw drive is or a good old fashion VCR.

The MPAA is not made of of sane people. Neither, apparently, is the Supreme Court. While there hasn't actually been a case over a DVD-RW drive, the good old fashioned VCR was the subject of a lawsuit which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The VCR manufacturer won... in a 5-4 decision. And the MPAA has been attempting to effectively reverse that decision ever since.

I think this is great. I'm sorry they built their work on the backs of other people who have always clearly stated their intentions with regards to the use of their software. The lack of this in GPLv2 is a HOLE. A HOLE which, of course, should be fixed.

If they disagree with the fundamental goal of the GPL, to free software so people CAN tinker with it, then they should have chosen a different set of software to build their product on.

Stallman and the FSF have always been perfectly open about what the GNU project and the GPL are about. They're about "The four freedoms of the user". This means that when TiVO decided to use GPL-licenced software, yet lock their hardware in a manner that denied the user some of these freedoms, they knew they were using a loophole, and thus acting in bad faith. They can try to play the victim all they want now that the loophole is being closed, but informed people will have no sympathy for them. They should have seen this coming from day 1.

First, there is MythTV which does what a TiVo does, I think (I haven't used either). Second, we don't need TiVo, the free software community is doing them a favor by letting them have the software, not the other way around. I'm happy if they use free software, it grows the community, assuming they want to be a part of it. However, they have shown that they do not want to be part of the community, they want to lock the community out of their own work. Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. If TiVo con

Users don't directly need all 4 freedoms, just freedom 0 (the freedom to use), and perhaps freedom 2 (freedom to share with your neighbors). But they indirectly benefit from the other freedoms. Let's say you're an end user, and want to add a feature to a program. With GPL software, you ave the freedom/ability to choose a developer to add the feature for you. Without freedom 1, you're pretty much at the mercy of the vendor to add the feature for you; nobody else is allowed to add to the program.

Let's see...Ubuntu won't need to fork. They don't distribute anything that it is not GPL already (apart from NVIDIA drivers, but even that is about to be under certain clauses). So, Ubuntu is fine.

IBM (and other big companies) use LGPL libraries or build tools that explicit say that you don't need to release your product as GPL (the say way GCC doesn't force you to release everything under the GPL, although GCC itself is GPL). They as safe too.

They're using RedHat 7.x for the boxes I work with (according to the software updates they provide). I don't think they would need to provide source for their components, as it all runs within Tomcat, etc.

I've already heard a lot about how the legal dept's of companies discourage the use of GPL'ed and Open Source software. Corporations fear any form of risk, however remote. (Unlike a government, they'd never install a thermal exhaust port that could be used to blow up their space station.) Corporations want to have total control over everything they are involved with. This has, from what I've heard, slowed FOSS adoption significantly.

If more fears of the GPLv3 affecting business models are heard, could th

They've gotten a free ride for a long time, and not contributed anything back, and now they might not get to use some of the free stuff that comes out in the future.

You need to realise that the GPLv3 will change nothing to their contribution. If they did changes to the kernel under GPLv2 (no idea whether they did), they'd already have to release the changes and GPLv3 will change nothing to that. The area where GPLv3 would change things for them is the fact that right now, they distribute the source for the

If using freely obtained software (with the associated licenses) is hurting their business, then they should just start spending some money hiring developers and making their own fully proprietary software. You can't have your free beer and drink it too.

It's one thing for companies actually selling movie downloads to use DRM since otherwise they wouldn't get any content to sell from the movie producers. But TIVO is not getting anything from the media companies. They are including DRM so that their box might get bundled by a cable provider rather than actually chosen by users on it's merit. They should have started a rebel business and sell boxes that record component HD signal from a cable box and switch channels using an IR transmitter. As it is, nobody will mourn their passing.

For crying out loud, they based their product on a system (GNU) whose founder - Stallman - openly believes that development and distribution of software that violates the so-called "4 essential freedoms of software users" are unethical and should cease. That's Tivo, that's what they do. The founder of the system they chose to base their business model on clearly and openly states that these practices are unethical and that it is the goal of the movement he founded, to eliminate them.

If they couldn't have been bothered to figure this out before they went down this road then someone in their development organization needs to be fired.

It says as much in the article. GPL 3 doesn't prevent the use of DRM. It just prevents you from using legal means to prevent people from removing the DRM, which is something that there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in anyway. The wording in GPL2 may well have been a perfectly valid defence in case of a DMCA complaint. GPL3 just makes it more explicit.

Bruce Perens wrote this back in March.http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9312220011.html [linux-watch.com]He basically said Tivo have nothing to worry about if they are willing to do a bit of work to implement their checking process in a different way.

Given that the text of the GPL3 has changed since he wrote this, do his points still stand true?

Tivo users suffer under their current GPLv2 abuse. Their rights are unjustly stolen from them, exploiting a circumstance hard to imagine in 1991 when the GPLv2 was published. Tivo knows this full well. Now is time to clean up their act (before GPLv3 would be best) or else they await a just upcommance.

Hmm, well, the whole purpose of the GPL is to discourage leeches and encourage co-operation. Nobody forced Tivo et al to mooch off GPL code. They are free to either re-invent it all, or to become honest players.

He who keeps taking our ball and goes home with it, has to play alone or bring the ball back...

Stallman, however, indicated that the ban does not apply to products meant to be used primarily in business environments.

This is an interesting quote. It appears I'm going to have to research the GPL v3 a little bit further.

Aside from that - I don't see much REAL news here. Tivo basically has stated that they are riding on the backs of open source developers, haven't done much of anything in return, and now that those developers have an easy option of migrating to a license that protects their work from the likes of Tivo they have to spend some time thinking about how exactly to move forward.

Tivo certainly could migrate to foundational software with BSD style licenses, but it will take some time rebuilding everything and re-testing. They can also migrate to proprietary licensed software as a foundation. Further, they have the alternative of re-structuring their DRM protection. They could also spend time, money, and energy lobbying needed GPL projects for alternative licensing.

They are not without options, and given the fact that their "innovation" has made zero contributions back to the group of developers that formed the foundation of their business, and given the fact that they prefer to strip rights from consumers(DRM), developers(licenses), and other innovators(patents) I don't see why they gain much sympathy at all.

If you don't like GPL3, don't develop under it. FSF and the GPL are designed to foster the OSS community. If you want to provide your users with more freedom, provide an alternative license, use an alternative license, or write your own license. If you don't like GPL3 from an end user perspective, don't use GPL3 software, lobby for alternative licensing, or promote alternative projects that don't make use of the GPL.

The GPLv3 doesn't grant anyone permission to break the law. Obviously it cannot.The point of the anti-DRM provisions of GPLv3 isn't that if someone uses GPLv3 code for DRM, the users get any legal right to circumvent it. The point is to prevent GPLv3 code from being used for DRM in the first place.

In other words, if I release FooSoft 1.8 under the GPLv3, and SomeRandomCompany uses it in their product with DRM, then tries to sue people that modify SRC's version of FooSoft to circumvent the DRM, it will be

I think it will be more like this: Circumventing the copy protection will still be illegal, but by using DRM the company is breaching the license agreement for the code. Thus, they must either scrap the DRM or else stop using GPL'd code.

I was about to say that what you are saying is not at all heresy, but merely a matter of choice. But then I though of the etymology of heresy [wikipedia.org] and realised that it is heresy. A series of choices, yours and others, have led to this situation. But it is the choices that have determined the outcome, nothing else.

The problem is not that "RMS is a spaced out hippy". The problem is that he is not compromising, and others are. When the crunch comes to the crunch, other people are found wanting, not RMS. He is, and

"In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation."

A lose-lose situation? How? If you aren't planning on giving derivative work back to the free software community in exchange for the free use of their software, they don't benefit.

Seems to me that (just like Tivo's) your dislike for the GPL comes only because you don't really want give back where you take.

I am not willing because it can infect software that I do not have the rights to.

GPL code doesn't "infect" anything. It's an invitation to enter into a contract, which you are free to accept or refuse. If you don't have the rights necessary to enter into said contract, that's not the licensor's problem. Like everyone says: "don't like the GPL? write your own goddam code and stop whining".

I don't get to use a developed and tested software solution and the open source community doesn't get any derived work I may have come up with based upon that solution

Which is not consistent with:

Yes I am not willing to accept the GPL

If you are not willing to accept the GPL, which essentially says you must contribute back your derived work if you redistribute it, then you are not willing to contribute back, so how could the open source community benefit from your work?

In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation.

So how exactly does the community lose out? Since you are developing proprietary software, you are not releasing anything so how does it benefit the community?

"So how exactly does the community lose out? Since you are developing proprietary software, you are not releasing anything so how does it benefit the community?'

Some software is proprietary some is not. Software in a device is not all one or the other. The trick is trying to keep the proprietary stuff at a minimum. The changes to the non proprietary stuff could be useful to the open source community and are therefore available.

Once, again, the FSF is using something they don't believe in to undo the effects of that thing.

Have you ever heard of using the enemies weapons against him?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Hoist by his own petard"...?

They are not the same thing.

Until the law changes, the rights exist. Or at least the powers exist. In law. They can use what is at hand to try and undo the damage, or they can let others make things worse. If you see them take up the arguments of intellectual property, or if you see them pushing for longer copyright terms, or if you see them trying ot restrict the right to run programs with EULAs, or if you see them pushing for jail terms for copyright violators, let me know. Until then, I am not gonna buy your argument that the two groups actions amount to the same thing. Sorry.